To note progress against the action plan that was developed as the Authority’s response to the audit of its performance management arrangements in the autumn of 2006, and the associated communications action plan.

The Committee received a report on progress against the action plan developed as the Authority’s response to the audit of its performance management arrangements in the autumn of 2006, and the associated communications action plan.

The report to Cabinet on 21 February was appended.

The Head of Policy and Performance (HPP) reported that the action plan was now somewhat dated and substantially completed.  Following the meeting his intention was to revise the action plan to focus on the remaining tasks and changing performance management requirements.  These revisions would be incorporated into the forward looking preparation plan for the Comprehensive Area Assessment.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         A plea was made for the Council’s documents to be written in plain English so that they were clear and Members and the public could readily understand them.

·         The amount of information being presented to Members and the level of detail was also discussed generally.  In this case the HPP said that circumstances had led to a number of performance related reports appearing together on the Committee’s agenda for 10March, some of which had had to be carried over to this meeting.   The revised performance Improvement cycle was designed to lead to a regular flow of reports. 

·         A general concern was expressed that the volume of information being presented to Members, in part in response to the findings of the Crookall report, reviewing ICT contractual and governance arrangements, could achieve the opposite to the desired objective.  There was a danger that rather than being better informed the overwhelming volume was making it difficult for members to focus on the key issues and what it was that Members were being asked to determine.  It was essential that a balance was struck so that the pertinent facts were presented to Members supported by relevant, but not excessive, information.

·         It was questioned whether performance management was yet really embedded within the Council.   The approach to performance management within the Police Service was commented on and it was suggested that this seemed more robust and embedded.  The HPP said that the Council’s performance management arrangements were improving and, crucially, performance indicators showed service delivery was improving too.  There were elements of good practice within the Council but the approach was not consistent enough across all service areas.  He was aware of the Police Service’s system of monthly challenge meetings and, although it was not practical to replicate this given the significantly wider range of Council services, the Council’s performance improvement cycle incorporated elements of that type of approach, drawing on peer challenge and the use of comparators.

·         Concern was expressed that a considerable resource seemed to be being devoted across the Council to managing the performance management process.  It was important that the principal focus was on improvement in services and that performance targets were relevant to this objective.  The HPP said that the Integrated Performance and Finance Report demonstrated that performance in service delivery was improving in most priority areas, as recognised by the Audit Commission in its 2007 direction of travel statement.  The Audit Commission and other external Regulators expected the Council to demonstrate that the necessary systems and processes were in place to underpin performance in service delivery.  The Committee had the opportunity to contribute to setting performance targets in considering the Corporate Plan.  He noted that the new national indicator set allowed councils to dispense with several previously prescribed targets.  However, it would still be important to set sufficient targets to be able to present a clear picture of the Council’s performance across all service areas.

·         In response to a further question about individual accountability for performance including in particular that of Directors and the Chief Executive the HPP confirmed that appropriate processes were contained in the performance improvement framework.  He also noted the role played by the strengthened Staff Review and Development process in identifying how individuals were to contribute to achieving targets.

·         In relation to recommendation 4 of the action plan which dealt with the integration of Members into the Council’s performance management arrangements the HPP confirmed that the Improvement and Development Agency guide on performance management had been issued to Members and a seminar held on the subject.  Work was continuing to reach agreement with partners on the preparation of a local guide for Members reflecting those longer term performance management arrangements across the County.

RESOLVED: That evidence of effective performance management was at best somewhat patchy and the Committee looked forward to the full adoption of plain succinct English and would hope that in future plans the volume of information might yet be reduced provided its quality is not compromised by this action.